|
|
Post by dwesq on Jul 26, 2017 11:52:04 GMT -5
I know much of this has been discussed in bits and pieces in other threads, but I wanted to consolidate all of my observations in one thread. First, a bit about me. I have worked at an NCAC (national writing center), hearing office, and NHC (hearing center). Ive been with the agency for more than 3 years. My "class" was hired straight out of law school as GS09s and then we were automatically promoted to 11s when we got sworn in.
Here are some brief pro's and con's to the job and I will expound in detail below.
Pro's a foot in the door experience for ALJ hopefuls Amazing work/life balance Telework Fairly easy stress-free work Network with judges Serve the public and those in dire need (I know it sounds sappy, but I will explain below)
Con's Monotony Micro Management Pressure to be productive Limited practice very little mobility limited career path
1. A foot in the door This job is one of the few that will hire lawyers fresh out of law school. To my knowledge, they haven't done this since 2015, but its at least a possibility. Regardless, they hire with little or no experience. However, they usually require some sort of academic honor or achievement and they stick with top 50 schools. It's a great place to get a foot in the door as a recent grad. Very few similar opportunities with other agencies.
2. Experience for ALJ Hopefuls As you all already know for some stupid reason AA experience alone is not good enough to be an ALJ, you need litigation experience. However, the best ALJs are the ones who used to be DWs. You cannot compare 7 years as a DW with a newly hired ALJ who did a crash course. Also, no matter how well you know the regs, you don't really know what it takes to write a legally sufficient decision until you have written a couple or 20. As was mentioned in other threads, prior experience is a very nice thing in terms of hiring, but not a necessity.
3. Work/Life Balance I cant tell you anything you don't already know. You get to be an attorney(ish) and work only 40 hours a week!! Plus 13 sick and 13 annual leave. Plus 10 Fed holidays! Plus leave for bad weather (depending on your union/office). On top of that, they several options for flex schedules. Another nice thing is that AAs can perform outside legal work. All you have to do is get permission from the chief judge and you can be a real lawyer on your own time! Loads of AAs have side hustles to make some extra income. Best of all, there are no deadlines, there are no urgent projects, and you don't have to worry about work piling off when you take a vacation. Likewise, the work never comes home with you. You put your 8 hours in and you go home. Period. No home work, no catching up, no inbox. In addition, they have great hours. you can work any 8 hours between 6 and 6. Ive even heard that some offices are open until 8. You can also "flex-out", meaning that you take time off in the middle of the day and come back to finish your shift. Finally, most offices are pretty liberal with credit hours. Similarly, you can work religious comp, meaning you can earn credit for religious holidays in advance or pay it back after the fact.
4. Telework All of your work is computer based. No paper files. So, most offices are on at least 3 days of TW a week. NCACs and NHCs are getting 4 days a week. Imagine coming into the office only once a week. From the look of things, it will get better when the unions renegotiate the contract, and they may expand to 100% TW, and you would only come into the office once per quarter (AAs at the VA already have that).
5. Fairly Easy Stress Free Work It takes most people 3 weeks of formal training and 6 months of review to get up to speed. That means within 6 months you know pretty much everything you will ever need to know to perform this job. All that remains is increasing writing efficiency and getting better at reviewing evidence. Like I mentioned above, there are basically no deadlines. However, there are production quotas. So for example, you have write about 18 cases a month to avoid being put on a performance plan. In addition, you have to write a case within a week of when you receive it. Typically, even the most complicated case takes no more than 12 hours to write. Most managers are pretty good about keeping you busy, but not dumping more than you can handle.
This is what a typical day looks like for a decision writer. Open case. Check judge's instructions to figure what needs to be done with the case. Set up template using info from instructions and case file. Review medical records. This requires reading hundreds or even thousands of pages of tedious medical records. With experience you get much better and recognizing records and easily locating the info you need. Most writers take notes and then start writing. Based on your file review, you draft the decision using the medical evidence to support the conclusions in the decision. Most writers give a chronographically summary of the medical evidence, followed by analysis and weighing of opinion evidence, and then a summary showing how the records support the conclusion. Repeat that every day for as long you want.
6. Network with Judges I know ALJs are not "real" judges, but they are still very experienced and respected lawyers. In hearing offices you will have access to a bunch of judges who may have valuable advice and contact to share with you. Also, a referral from a "judge" is still pretty impressive.
7. Public Service People die waiting for disability decisions. Let that sink in. As we speak, someone is in dire need of disability and they are stuck waiting in line for a hearing. Now, you might say that they were already denied by a disability examiner, so really this is just a second bite at the apple. Wrong. First, disability examiners are simply not as well trained or experienced as judges and attorneys. They often make very serious mistakes. Also, in many if not most cases, not enough development has occurred at the initial levels. So, the ALJ usually has much more evidence to consider. Finally, the DW spends more time with the file than anyone else and probably more than all prior level combined. DWs have 10 hours for a UF case. ALJ's have only about 2.5 hours per case. Disability examiners have even less time. DWs know the case better than anyone and in most offices they can have a lot of influence on the judge's ultimate decision. In a way, DWs are in a very powerful position.
Every file has a face and behind that face is someone who is waiting to get a decision. Even if its an unfavorable decision, at the very least they have closure and they can move on to the next level or reapply. For claimants who get paid, disability payments can stave off foreclosure or get them much needed health insurance. Getting these decisions out to claimant, even just a few days faster, means a few days of less anxiety.
Those are the pro's. I come back for the con's when I have more time. Feel free to add your own thoughts, ask questions, or debate my points.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Jul 26, 2017 17:53:17 GMT -5
Decision writing does count towards the seven years of qualifying legal experience. You may be thinking of the old qualification standards, which required litigation experience. Administrative law experience is also qualifying, and that includes decision writing. I have met at least one ALJ who had only decision writing experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousga on Jul 26, 2017 18:59:18 GMT -5
While litigation is not required, the OPM scoring system is heavily weighted toward litigation such that it is very difficult currently to get a on the register without litigation work.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jul 26, 2017 19:03:10 GMT -5
While litigation is not required, the OPM scoring system is heavily weighted toward litigation such that it is very difficult currently to get a on the register without litigation work. You know how the scoring system works??? Wow. Not even gary knows how that star chamber works.....You are an OPM whisperer... |
|
|
|
Post by curiousga on Jul 26, 2017 19:14:46 GMT -5
While litigation is not required, the OPM scoring system is heavily weighted toward litigation such that it is very difficult currently to get a on the register without litigation work. You know how the scoring system works??? Wow. Not even gary knows how that star chamber works.....You are an OPM whisperer... The ranking system based on experience from 1-5 is weighted toward litigation and most every ALJ hired in the last few years has some litigation. It's not a mystery. It's a part of the test. |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jul 26, 2017 19:21:02 GMT -5
You know how the scoring system works??? Wow. Not even gary knows how that star chamber works.....You are an OPM whisperer... The ranking system based on experience from 1-5 is weighted toward litigation and most every ALJ hired in the last few years has some litigation. It's not a mystery. It's a part of the test. Ah. We have no idea how they arrive at the score for ALJs...so it is less than transparent -- to say the least. |
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32 
|
Post by dwfl on Jul 26, 2017 19:41:19 GMT -5
The ranking system based on experience from 1-5 is weighted toward litigation and most every ALJ hired in the last few years has some litigation. It's not a mystery. It's a part of the test. Ah. We have no idea how they arrive at the score for ALJs...so it is less than transparent -- to say the least. We know that the 13 competencies are equally weighed. The competency of "Litigation and Courtroom Competence" seems to relate exclusively to rating your litigation experience. 100/13 = 7.69 points total for your self-rated litigation experience When evaluating the worth of rating yourself from 1-5, you would find that each point is worth 7.69/5, which is 1.54. Thus, a self-rating of 5 would be 7.69 points, and a self-rating of 1 would be 1.54 points. That is a difference of over 6 points, which makes a huge difference in getting an interview or being selected. While I am fairly sure of this scoring method, I concede that it is true that there has been no official announcement of this scoring method. Nonetheless, the selection results strongly correlate with this theory. |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jul 26, 2017 19:43:29 GMT -5
Ah. We have no idea how they arrive at the score for ALJs...so it is less than transparent -- to say the least. We know that the 13 competencies are equally weighed. The competency of "Litigation and Courtroom Competence" seems to relate exclusively to rating your litigation experience. 100/13 = 7.69 points total for your self-rated litigation experience When evaluating the worth of rating yourself from 1-5, you would find that each point is worth 7.69/5, which is 1.54. Thus, a self-rating of 5 would be 7.69 points, and a self-rating of 1 would be 1.54 points. That is a difference of over 6 points, which makes a huge difference in getting an interview or being selected. While I am fairly sure of this scoring method, I concede that it is true that there has been no official announcement of this scoring method. Nonetheless, the selection results strongly correlate with this theory. Thank you. However, as sophie22 will tell you -- "Mongo not good math." I am trying to wrap my head around it. But it sounds right. Thank goodness for an ALJ position -- I understand medicine... |
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jul 26, 2017 20:00:38 GMT -5
Ah. We have no idea how they arrive at the score for ALJs...so it is less than transparent -- to say the least. We know that the 13 competencies are equally weighed. The competency of "Litigation and Courtroom Competence" seems to relate exclusively to rating your litigation experience. 100/13 = 7.69 points total for your self-rated litigation experience When evaluating the worth of rating yourself from 1-5, you would find that each point is worth 7.69/5, which is 1.54. Thus, a self-rating of 5 would be 7.69 points, and a self-rating of 1 would be 1.54 points. That is a difference of over 6 points, which makes a huge difference in getting an interview or being selected. While I am fairly sure of this scoring method, I concede that it is true that there has been no official announcement of this scoring method. Nonetheless, the selection results strongly correlate with this theory. That assumes that they take your EA rating at face value, and that the EA is the only means of gaining points on that competency. Not so sure that either is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jul 26, 2017 20:03:19 GMT -5
We know that the 13 competencies are equally weighed. The competency of "Litigation and Courtroom Competence" seems to relate exclusively to rating your litigation experience. 100/13 = 7.69 points total for your self-rated litigation experience When evaluating the worth of rating yourself from 1-5, you would find that each point is worth 7.69/5, which is 1.54. Thus, a self-rating of 5 would be 7.69 points, and a self-rating of 1 would be 1.54 points. That is a difference of over 6 points, which makes a huge difference in getting an interview or being selected. While I am fairly sure of this scoring method, I concede that it is true that there has been no official announcement of this scoring method. Nonetheless, the selection results strongly correlate with this theory. That assumes that they take your EA rating at face value, and that the EA is the only means of gaining points on that competency. Not so sure that either is the case. And that everything is weighted equally. Nevertheless I think the correlation between high scores and litigation experience is pretty well established. |
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by dwfl on Jul 26, 2017 20:31:37 GMT -5
That assumes that they take your EA rating at face value, and that the EA is the only means of gaining points on that competency. Not so sure that either is the case. And that everything is weighted equally. Nevertheless I think the correlation between high scores and litigation experience is pretty well established. My source on equal weighting is reliable. The competencies are equally weighted. The open question is what weight each "test" has in each competency. Regarding face value for self-rating, I did not mean to assert that OPM would not investigate self-rating. As for other parts of the test possibly being used to evaluate the litigation competency, I'm leaning on Occam's razor. It is not clear why you would self-rate litigation if they were going to use other means to test for that competency. You already provide detailed info for the EA. However, I admit there is still plenty of room to doubt this scoring theory. |
|
|
|
Post by lawbird on Jul 27, 2017 1:16:50 GMT -5
I know much of this has been discussed in bits and pieces in other threads, but I wanted to consolidate all of my observations in one thread. First, a bit about me. I have worked at an NCAC (national writing center), hearing office, and NHC (hearing center). Ive been with the agency for more than 3 years. My "class" was hired straight out of law school as GS09s and then we were automatically promoted to 11s when we got sworn in.
Here are some brief pro's and con's to the job and I will expound in detail below.
Pro's a foot in the door experience for ALJ hopefuls Amazing work/life balance Telework Fairly easy stress-free work Network with judges Serve the public and those in dire need (I know it sounds sappy, but I will explain below)
Con's Monotony Micro Management Pressure to be productive Limited practice very little mobility limited career path
1. A foot in the door This job is one of the few that will hire lawyers fresh out of law school. To my knowledge, they haven't done this since 2015, but its at least a possibility. Regardless, they hire with little or no experience. However, they usually require some sort of academic honor or achievement and they stick with top 50 schools. It's a great place to get a foot in the door as a recent grad. Very few similar opportunities with other agencies.
2. Experience for ALJ Hopefuls As you all already know for some stupid reason AA experience alone is not good enough to be an ALJ, you need litigation experience. However, the best ALJs are the ones who used to be DWs. You cannot compare 7 years as a DW with a newly hired ALJ who did a crash course. Also, no matter how well you know the regs, you don't really know what it takes to write a legally sufficient decision until you have written a couple or 20. As was mentioned in other threads, prior experience is a very nice thing in terms of hiring, but not a necessity.
3. Work/Life Balance I cant tell you anything you don't already know. You get to be an attorney(ish) and work only 40 hours a week!! Plus 13 sick and 13 annual leave. Plus 10 Fed holidays! Plus leave for bad weather (depending on your union/office). On top of that, they several options for flex schedules. Another nice thing is that AAs can perform outside legal work. All you have to do is get permission from the chief judge and you can be a real lawyer on your own time! Loads of AAs have side hustles to make some extra income. Best of all, there are no deadlines, there are no urgent projects, and you don't have to worry about work piling off when you take a vacation. Likewise, the work never comes home with you. You put your 8 hours in and you go home. Period. No home work, no catching up, no inbox. In addition, they have great hours. you can work any 8 hours between 6 and 6. Ive even heard that some offices are open until 8. You can also "flex-out", meaning that you take time off in the middle of the day and come back to finish your shift. Finally, most offices are pretty liberal with credit hours. Similarly, you can work religious comp, meaning you can earn credit for religious holidays in advance or pay it back after the fact.
4. Telework All of your work is computer based. No paper files. So, most offices are on at least 3 days of TW a week. NCACs and NHCs are getting 4 days a week. Imagine coming into the office only once a week. From the look of things, it will get better when the unions renegotiate the contract, and they may expand to 100% TW, and you would only come into the office once per quarter (AAs at the VA already have that).
5. Fairly Easy Stress Free Work It takes most people 3 weeks of formal training and 6 months of review to get up to speed. That means within 6 months you know pretty much everything you will ever need to know to perform this job. All that remains is increasing writing efficiency and getting better at reviewing evidence. Like I mentioned above, there are basically no deadlines. However, there are production quotas. So for example, you have write about 18 cases a month to avoid being put on a performance plan. In addition, you have to write a case within a week of when you receive it. Typically, even the most complicated case takes no more than 12 hours to write. Most managers are pretty good about keeping you busy, but not dumping more than you can handle.
This is what a typical day looks like for a decision writer. Open case. Check judge's instructions to figure what needs to be done with the case. Set up template using info from instructions and case file. Review medical records. This requires reading hundreds or even thousands of pages of tedious medical records. With experience you get much better and recognizing records and easily locating the info you need. Most writers take notes and then start writing. Based on your file review, you draft the decision using the medical evidence to support the conclusions in the decision. Most writers give a chronographically summary of the medical evidence, followed by analysis and weighing of opinion evidence, and then a summary showing how the records support the conclusion. Repeat that every day for as long you want.
6. Network with Judges I know ALJs are not "real" judges, but they are still very experienced and respected lawyers. In hearing offices you will have access to a bunch of judges who may have valuable advice and contact to share with you. Also, a referral from a "judge" is still pretty impressive.
7. Public Service People die waiting for disability decisions. Let that sink in. As we speak, someone is in dire need of disability and they are stuck waiting in line for a hearing. Now, you might say that they were already denied by a disability examiner, so really this is just a second bite at the apple. Wrong. First, disability examiners are simply not as well trained or experienced as judges and attorneys. They often make very serious mistakes. Also, in many if not most cases, not enough development has occurred at the initial levels. So, the ALJ usually has much more evidence to consider. Finally, the DW spends more time with the file than anyone else and probably more than all prior level combined. DWs have 10 hours for a UF case. ALJ's have only about 2.5 hours per case. Disability examiners have even less time. DWs know the case better than anyone and in most offices they can have a lot of influence on the judge's ultimate decision. In a way, DWs are in a very powerful position.
Every file has a face and behind that face is someone who is waiting to get a decision. Even if its an unfavorable decision, at the very least they have closure and they can move on to the next level or reapply. For claimants who get paid, disability payments can stave off foreclosure or get them much needed health insurance. Getting these decisions out to claimant, even just a few days faster, means a few days of less anxiety.
Those are the pro's. I come back for the con's when I have more time. Feel free to add your own thoughts, ask questions, or debate my points.
This thread has veered widely away from the original post, but that post is golden. I shall include it in my virtual notebook for my new job. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Jul 27, 2017 7:22:33 GMT -5
Decision writing does count towards the seven years of qualifying legal experience. You may be thinking of the old qualification standards, which required litigation experience. Administrative law experience is also qualifying, and that includes decision writing. I have met at least one ALJ who had only decision writing experience. I have also met ALJs who have only had DW experience, but none that were hired within the last 8 years. Also, as I mentioned above, you can get your side hustle on as a DW and get litigation experience doing private work on the side. |
|
Gabby
Full Member
Posts: 65 
|
Post by Gabby on Jul 27, 2017 9:19:54 GMT -5
I am a decision writer who started working at SSA after 20 years of litigation experience. It set me up VERY well to get on the register on my first try. I will say that my supervisors that came into SSA directly out of law school, did not even make it through the first level of testing because of lack of "litigation" experience. Although it is considered litigation, it is not the expert level highly complex litigation as defined in the testing. So if you want to be an ALJ, are burned out from years of litigation. This is a great job. You will likely have supervisors with far less experience than you. But you truly are autonomous in your duties. I am at home four days a week, writing my decisions with my dog at my side. You will be expected to get the work out, but it truly is not that difficult. There will be days that you absolutely hate the case you are working on. But guess what, once you send it on its way....it is out of your life and you move on to the next case.
I highly recommend those that have a lot of litigation experience, bite the bullet and come to work as an AA.
For those who are just out of law school, as are a lot of my colleagues. They are going to start doing pro bono trial work to get those litigation hours in.
But truly, the path I took was very helpful for me to make the register. There is a recruitment bulletin for new attorney advisors in the thread Attorney-Advisor hiring. Get to it folks! Apply. You may be sitting in a cubicle next to me one day per week!
|
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by dwfl on Jul 27, 2017 12:25:11 GMT -5
For those who are just out of law school, as are a lot of my colleagues. They are going to start doing pro bono trial work to get those litigation hours in. If you were to do eight hours of pro bono trial work a week for a year, would OPM count that as a year of trial work experience? Alternatively, would you need to do five years of eight-hour pro bono weeks to equal one year of trial work? |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jul 27, 2017 12:49:28 GMT -5
"Ouch" to alanesq's comments that ALJs are not "real" judges. I know in my state, the Bar lists ALJ's as members of the judiciary. They are not Article III judges. They are Article I judges and therefore members of the executive branch, not the judiciary. But I bet some ALJ made a stink about it so they acquiesced. |
|
|
|
Post by Burt Macklin on Jul 27, 2017 12:56:24 GMT -5
ALJs are one-star (O-7) equivalents for military protocol purposes. So, they have that going for them - which is nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jul 27, 2017 13:03:26 GMT -5
ALJs are one-star (O-7) equivalents for military protocol purposes. So, they have that going for them - which is nice. Crazy, I didn't know that. There you go: post ALJ career, high ranking military officer! |
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Jul 27, 2017 15:58:16 GMT -5
Keep in mind that you need approval to do outside work, even volunteer work. A request to do outside work is not automatically approved. Which isn't to say not to try - just don't think it's an "entitlement." To coin a phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Jul 27, 2017 16:32:05 GMT -5
So here are the cons. But first, a disclaimer: as with most things, a lot of these items are a matter or perspective, personality, and attitude. Also, a lot of this will seem pretty dark. Perhaps its the Mr. Hyde in me on full display. But, if you want happy rainbows and unicorns, see above. Finally, most of this applies only to AAs, but some of can also apply to ALJs. Monotony Very tiny scope Micromanaging Lack of social interaction You're job can be performed by a paralegal (or maybe even a very well-trained monkey) Limited career options Very short career path Having to satisfy opposing interests This job is not what you went to law school for. You probably didn't even know this part of SSA even existed before applying for the job. If you took an Admin Law class for some silly reason, you likely spent one class talking about SSA disability. When you tell people that you work for SSA, the first thing they ask (every darn time!), is when the retirement fund will run out. You will never step foot in a court room, you will never counsel a client, you will never use Lexis/WL, you will likely never wear a suit or tie after your first few days of orientation. In many cases, like at the NCAC, you wont even have an office. You will sit in a tiny cubicle, in a warehouse, chained to a computer typing away. Unless you work in an NHC, you will have a group supervisor, who may not even event be a lawyer him/herself!! (although they have tried to remedy that recently). You will learn everything you need to know about the law for your new job in about 3 weeks. Remember all those legal writing classes you took in law school? Remember how to write a legal brief and not use the passive voice? Forget all that. Your knew best friend will be the passive voice (see what I did there?  . You know that sharply honed legal brain of yours? Yeah, you know, the way you used to make biting oral arguments and cut down your opponents in briefs. Well, you won't be doing much of that anymore. This job is not about sharp analysis or legal/factual synthesis. Most of what you will do is enter info into a template and cut and paste autotext. Rote. Monotony. Day in and day out. Every day. Endlessly. Every case the same, except for a few small things. But unlike Einstein's definition of insanity, you will go insane because you will see the same facts, but the judges will ask for different results! And there is no clear end in sight. You can realistically hit GS12 and then sit there until the day you retire. That's it. No automatic promotion past 12. Sure, you can try for a GS13 job, but those are few and far between. And don't think you can use this as springboard for other attorney jobs in the agency or in other federal agencies. You have almost nothing to offer. You have never litigated a case. You have never interviewed a client. You have no experience with federal contracting or equal employment issues. All you can do is read a pile of medical evidence and bang on a keyboard repeating what's in the file. Yeah, a job so simple, they used to hire paralegals to do it. Do you like staring at a screen all day? Do you type really fast? Do you avoid other people and sunlight? If yes, this job is for you. At one point, I had gone almost 2 months without saying a word to another person during work hours. Now, admittedly, some of that was due to TW and my GS being on vacay. But don't worry, your GS will make sure you follow all the policies and ask permission for a hall pass when you have to go tinkle. Yup! you're a fully grown adult who graduated from law school, but you still needs a GS to make sure you watched the latest VOD on PII or whatever. GSs are hit or miss. Some are very hands-off and you really have to mess up to get them on your back. Others like to take a more hands on approach. Either way, someone with only a little more experience than you will be breathing down your neck and all up in your face if you put a toe out of line. So in reality, you walk a pretty tight line in terms of who you have to please. On the one hand, you're writing for a judge, and ultimately he has to sign off on what you write. But, technically, your GS also has a say. He/she can review your work and suggest "improvements" or refer it to quality review. In the background, the appeals council lurks. They're just waiting to pounce on your decision and tell how you didn't give proper weight to the claimant's dog's third party function report. Finally, your decision will be read by a real live claimant, and his very aggressive lawyer. That brings me to my final point. You will get very jaded. No one is immune to it. I'm afraid to reveal how bad it can get, but it's pretty funny to see so many liberal democrats who love entitlement spending start to quietly agree that we need stricter entitlement enforcement. I'll stop there. Suffice it to say that many people have the wrong idea about disability benefits. There is extremely high turnover for AAs at SSA. At the NCAC, they have churned through over 100 attorneys in less than 3 years!!! (At peak they had about 240 attorneys, and now they are down to about 140) Yes, some of it is due to promotions and internal movement. But, a lot of it was due to burnout and better opportunities elsewhere. P.S. Some of you will notice that I didn't mention the dreaded production standards. Yes, they are frustrating and they make no sense, and yes its not the kind of thing you expect from a law job. However, in reality its a joke. To avoid getting fired all you need is a production rating of 80%. That's about 16 cases a month. If you made it this far in your legal career, you should have no problem with that. |
|
. You know that sharply honed legal brain of yours? Yeah, you know, the way you used to make biting oral arguments and cut down your opponents in briefs. Well, you won't be doing much of that anymore. This job is not about sharp analysis or legal/factual synthesis. Most of what you will do is enter info into a template and cut and paste autotext.